Intimate Partner Femicide: The 12
City Femicide Study With FemicideSuicide
Jacquelyn Campbell PhD RN FAAN
Anna D. Wolf Endowed Chair & Professor
Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing
Multi City Intimate Partner Femicide Study
Funded by: NIDA/NIAA, NIMH, CDC, NIJ VAWA R01 DA/AA1156
HOMICIDE IN BATTERING
RELATIONSHIPS
40 - 50% OF US WOMEN KILLED BY HUSBAND, BF OR EX
(vs. 5-8% of men) (9 times rate killed by a stranger)
7th leading cause of premature death for US women; #2 cause
of death-African & Native American women 15-34 yo
Immigrant women at increased risk in NYC (Wilt ’04)
US – At least 2/3 of women killed – battered prior – if male
killed – prior wife abuse in 75% of cases (Campbell, ‘92; Morocco
et al, ‘98)
More at risk when leaving or left (Wilson & Daly, ‘93; Campbell et.
al. ’01; Websdale ‘99) – 1st 3 mos & 1st year - but eventually more safe
Women far more likely victims of homicide-suicide (29% vs.1%
male-US–29.3 vs. 2.3%-Canada) 40% - Ontario (DVDRC ‘06)
44-47% of women killed seen in health care system before
killed (Sharps, Campbell ’02; Wadman & Muelleman ‘99)
INTIMATE PARTNER FEMICIDE BY
PERPETRATOR IN TEN CITIES (N= 311)
(same sex intimate femicides – Glass et al., 2004)
EX-BF
EX-SPOUSE
8.0%
BOYFRIEND
29.6%
19.3%
OTHER
2.6%
SPOUSE
40.5%
U.S. INTIMATE PARTNER HOMICIDE RATE
DECLINE 1976-06 FBI (SHR, 1976-02; BJS ’05, ‘07)
1800
1600
1400
1200
FEMALE
1000
800
600
400
MALE
200
20
04
20
02
20
00
19
96
19
94
19
92
19
90
19
88
19
86
19
84
19
82
19
80
19
78
19
76
0
2004, 05 - no ex’s
Decline in Intimate Partner Homicide
and Femicide
Decline in male victimization in states where
improved DV laws and services - resource
availability (Browne & Williams ’89; ’98, Dugan, Nagin, &
Rosenfeld ‘99)
Exposure reduction - increased female earnings,
lower marriage rate, higher divorce rate (Dugan, Nagin
& Rosenfeld ’99; Smith & Brewer ’90)
Gun availability decline (Wilt ‘97; Block ‘95;
Kellerman ‘93, ‘97- gun increases risk X3) –
special issue of Evaluation Review ’06 – Sorenson,
Special Editor
Decrease by Race - Intimate Homicide Rate By
Race Age 20-44 FBI, (SHR), 1976-96
20
15
10
5
A.A. Female
A.A. Male
Anglo Female
0
Anglo Male
76 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 000
9
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
U.S. INTIMATE PARTNER HOMICIDE RATES
& DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SERVICES 1976-9
(Resources per 50 million - Dugan, Nagin & Rosenfeld ‘03)
4000
3500
3000
2500
IP Homicides
Hotlines
Legal Advocacy
2000
1500
1000
500
2000
1998
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
1976
0
INTIMATE PARTNER HOMICIDE: KILLED
BY GUNS US ‘76-’02 (SHR) (>2/3 of intimates)
2500
2000
With Guns
1500
1000
500
Without Guns
00
20
95
19
90
19
85
19
80
19
19
76
0
Early work on Femicide
Dayton, OH study on IP homicide – 28 women &
26 men killed by intimate partners – prior DV in
66% of female cases; 75% of male (Campbell ‘81 &
’92)
Several women seen in local ED’s before killed
Others – police called but nothing done
Power and control issues clear in reports
Further work developing and refining and testing
Danger Assessment (Campbell ‘86; ’89; ‘92 - & ‘08)
Femicide Risk Study
(Funded by: NIDA/NIAA, NIMH, CDC, NIJ VAWA R01 DA/AA1156)
Purpose: Identify and establish risk factors for IP
femicide – (over and above domestic violence)
Significance: Determine strategies to prevent IP femicide
– especially amongst battered women – Approximately
half of victims (54% of actual femicides; 45% of
attempteds) did not accurately perceive their risk – that
perpetrator was capable of killing her &/or would kill her
RISK FACTORS FOR INTIMATE PARTNER
FEMICIDE: RESEARCH TEAM
(Funded by: NIDA/NIAA, NIMH, CDC, NIJ VAWA R01 DA/AA1156)
R. Block, PhD (ICJA)
D. Campbell, PhD, RN (FSU)
J. McFarlane, DrPH, RN (TWU)
C. Sachs MD, MPH (UCLA)
P. Sharps, PhD, RN (GWU)
Y. Ulrich, PhD, RN (UW)
S. Wilt, PhD (NYC DOH)
F. Gary, PhD, RN (UFl)
M.A. Curry PhD, RN (OHSU)
N. Glass, PhD, RN (OHSU)
J. Koziol-McLain, PhD, RN (JHU)
J.Schollenberger MPH (JHU)
A. Kellerman, MD, MPH (Emory)
X. Xu, MSN (JHU)
Kathryn Chouaf, MSN (JHU)
RISK FACTORS FOR INTIMATE PARTNER FEMICIDE:
CITIES AND CO-INVESTIGATORS
(Funded by: NIDA/NIAA, NIMH, CDC, NIJ VAWA R01 DA/AA1156)
Baltimore
Chicago
Houston
Kansas City, KA&MO
Los Angelos
New York
Portland, OR
Seattle, WA
Tampa/St. Pete
Wichita, KA
P. Sharps (GWU)
B. Block (ICJA)
J. McFarlane (TWU)
Y. Ulrich (UW)
C. Sachs (UCLA)
S. Wilt (NYDOH)
M. A. Curry (OHSU)
Y. Ulrich (UW)
D. Campbell (FSU)
Y. Ulrich (UW)
Case Control Design
Data Source
CASES - women who are
killed by their intimate partners
Police Homicide Files
Proxy informants
CONTROLS - women who are Women themselves
physically abused by their
intimate partners
(second set of nonabused
controls – for later analysis)
Addition of Attempted Femicides
Data Source
CASES - women who are
killed by their intimate partners
Police Homicide files
Proxy informants
CONTROLS - women who are
physically abused by their
intimate partners
CASES - women who are
ALMOST killed by their intimate
partners
Women themselves
Women themselves –
to address issue of
validity of proxy
information
Definition: Attempted Femicide
GSW or SW to the head, neck or torso.
Strangulation or near drowning with loss of
consciousness.
Severe injuries inflicted that easily could have
led to death.
GSW or SW to other body part with
unambiguous intent to kill.
If none of above, unambiguous intent to kill.
PRIOR PHYSICAL ABUSE & STALKING EXPERIENCED
ONR YEAR PRIOR TO FEMICIDE (N=311) & ATTEMPTED
FEMICIDE (N=182)
Prior physical abuse
Increased in frequency
Increased in severity
Stalked
No prior physical abuse
Stalked
Femicide
Attempted
70%
66%
62%
87%
72%
54%
60%
95%
30%
58%
28%
72%
INTIMATE PARTNER ABUSED
CONTROLS (N = 356)
Random sample selected from same cities as femicide and
attempted femicide cases
Telephone survey conducted 11/98 - 9/99 using random
digit dialing
Women in household 18-50 years old & most recently
celebrated a birthday
Women abused (including sexual assault & threats) by an
intimate partner w/in 2 years prior – modified CTS
Safety protocols followed
Sample – (only those cases with
prior physical abuse or threats)
FEMICIDE CASES
Number
220
ATTEMPTED FEMICIDE CASES
143
ABUSED CONTROLS
356
Sociodemographic comparisons
90
80
70
60
Fem/Att. Perp
Abuse Perp
Fem/Att. Victim
Abuse Victim
50
40
30
20
10
0
Af/Am
Anglo
Hispanic
<HS Ed
Job
Mean Age
Fem/Att Perp = 36
Abuse Perp = 31
Fem/Att Victim = 34
Abuse Victim = 29
DANGER ASSESSMENT ITEMS COMPARING ACTUAL &
ATTEMPTED FEMICIDE SURVIVORS (N=493) & ABUSED
(WITHIN PAST 24 MONTHS) CONTROLS (N=427) (*p < .05)
Att/Actual
56%
Physical violence increased in frequency*
Physical violence increased in severity *
62%
Partner tried to choke victim *
50%
A gun is present in the house *
64%
Partner forced victim to have sex *
39%
Partner used street drugs *
55%
Partner threatened to kill victim *
57%
Victim believes partner is capable of killing
54%
her *
16%
Perpetrator AD Military History (ns.)
4.6
Stalking score*
Control
24%
18%
10%
16%
12%
23%
14%
24%
22%
2.4
VICTIM & PERPETRATOR OWNERSHIP OF WEAPON IN
FEMICIDE (N = 311), ATTEMPTED FEMICIDE (N = 182),
ABUSED CONTROL (N=427) & NON-ABUSED CONTROL
(N=418) CASES
Femicide
Attempted
Abused control
Nonabused control
74.1
80
70
60
52.9
50
40
26.8
30
20
15.7 14.6 16.9 15.6
12.7
10
0
Victim
Perpetrator
2=125.6, P< .0001
DANGER ASSESSMENT ITEMS COMPARING ACTUAL &
ATTEMPTED FEMICIDE SURVIVORS (N=493) & ABUSED
(WITHIN PAST 24 MONTHS) CONTROLS (N=427) (*p < .05)
Att/Actual Control
Partner is drunk every day *
42%
12%
Partner controls all victim’s activities *
60%
32%
Partner beat victim while pregnant *
36%
7.7%
Partner is violently jealous of victim (says
32%
things like “If I can’t have you,no one can”)* 79%
7%
9%
Victim threatened/tried to commit suicide
19%
Partner threatened/tried to commit suicide * 39%
9%
3%
Partner is violent toward victim’s children*
Partner is violent outside house*
49%
38%
Partner arrested for DV* (not criminality)
27%
15%
Partner hurt a pet on purpose
10.1%
8.5%
Nonsignificant Variables of note
Hurting a pet on purpose -10% of attempteds/actual
victims vs. 8.5% of controls
BUT – some clear cases of using cruelty to a pet as a threat to
kill
WAS a risk for women to be abused (compared with nonabused
controls) (AOR = 7.59 – Walton-Moss et al ’05)
AND more (but still not sign.) risk in attempted femicide sample –
perhaps proxies not as knowledgeable about pets – warrants
further investigation
Perpetrator military history – 16% actual/attempteds vs.
22% of controls
Risk Models
Femicides with abuse history only (violence & threats)
compared to abused controls (*N=181 femicides; 319
abused controls – total = 500 (18-50 yo only)
Missing variables
variables had to be excluded from femicide model due to
missing responses – if don’t know – no – therefore
underestimate risk
Logistic Regression Plan – comparing cases & controls
Model variable in blocks – background characteristics –
individual & couple, general violence related variables, violent
relationship characteristics – then incident level
Interaction terms entered – theoretically derived
Significant (p<.05) Variables (Entered into
Blocks) before Incident (overall fit = 85%
correct classification)
Perpetrator unemployed
Perpetrator gun access
Perpetrator Stepchild
Couple Never Lived Together
Highly controlling perpetrator
Estranged X Low control (interaction)
Estranged X Control (interaction)
Threatened to kill her
Threatened w/weapon prior
Forced sex
Prior Arrest for DV
OR = 4.4
OR = 5.4
OR = 2.4
OR = .34
OR = 2.1
OR = 3.6
OR = 5.5
OR = 3.2
OR = 3.8
OR = 1.9
OR = .34
Femicide – Suicide Cases (32% of
femicide cases in study – 29% US)
Significant explanatory power for same femicide –
suicide risk factors.
Partner access to gun
Threats with a weapon, choking
Step child in the home
Estrangement
Unique to femicide – suicide:
Partner suicide threats – history of poor mental health
Married
Somewhat higher education levels (unemployment still a
risk factor), more likely to be white, Hispanic or Asian (vs.
African America) but not significant in multivariate
Multicity Femicide Study – Results
related to pregnancy
25.8% of women killed reported abuse during
pregnancy (vs. 8.4% of abused controls) – AOR =
3.8
13 women (4.2%) killed while pregnant – 11 of 13
abused in relationship before killed
Stepchild in home AOR = 2.48
Results specific to pregnancy published:
(McFarlane, Campbell et. al. ’02 OB/GYN, 100:
27-36; also Campbell, Webster et. al. AJPH ’03)
From Public Health Perspective –
Maternal Mortality
Maternal mortality – Death from all causes during pregnancy &
year after delivery or pregnancy termination
Homicide - leading cause of maternal mortality in US cities
where measured (NYC, Chicago, DC) (Dannenberg, ’95;
Krulewitch ‘01)
Leading cause of maternal mortality in entire state of MD
(Horon & Cheng, 2001) – 20% of deaths
Has been neglected in maternal death reviews – (perpetrator
data missing) & therefore programming in US but fatality
reviews increasing
St. George – Washington Post – 12/04 1237 documented DV
maternal mortalities since ’90 - 88 per yr (vs. 1200+ DV
Maternal Mortality Worldwide
Homicide shown to be an important cause in other
countries also – e.g. Mozambique, Bangaledesh
(Fauveau & Koenig,’88)
Maternal deaths in developing countries – ongoing
and serious problem –e.g. in India – 13% of deaths
of women – 4-5.5 per 1000 live births (WHO) but
% related to IP homicide not documented
400 villages Maharastra State (Pune, Aurangabad
& Ahmednagar districts) India – hand review of
records
16% of all deaths during pregnancy due to IPV; 70% of
maternal deaths in region unrecorded & 41% of
recorded deaths misclassified (Ganatra et. al. ’98)
Lessons learned
Importance of proxy informants – otherwise
NEVER get true incidence of prior DV
Importance of hand search of police records –
miss many cases otherwise
Importance of homicide-suicides – need for
further study
Importance of maternal mortality – data base
disconnect
Importance of attempted femicides victims as
sources of data
Never forget who it’s for “please don’t let her death be for nothing –
please get her story told”
(one of the Moms)